You're extremely bitter and a bit "off". I really don't get how you reply to me, create an argument, and then scold me for being greedy. And you have a bad habit of cherry-picking what you want to reply to. The choices you make, your values and ethos is not a reflection of me. Perhaps this is how you make amends with your personal demons by using me for your confessions? I don't apologize for driving a certain car. My lack of apology also isn't an admission of greed because no greed is present, but you're delusional and I'm sure a weird reply will soon follow....

Sorry, I didnt create an argument. The premise of the video is that "greed can be good". You responded before me to refute that notion, all the while owning a costly example of material excess that makes any anti-greed position ring hollow. In fact, other posters pointed out this discrepancy before I did. I guess they are crazy too?

I know and accept who I am, and I am at peace with it. I do not pretend to be anything else. How that makes me delusional, I'm not sure.

You may dislike my reference of accepted, standardized definitions for words. I did not construct these definitions.

If a word that could be used to define you is in conflict with the image of yourself that you wish to present to others, shooting the messenger, or disputing the actual definition of the word does not a compelling argument make.

I am trying to point out, as others have in this thread, that people (such as you and I) who own such expensive examples of automotive excess have no justification disparaging the greed of others, especially in a sanctimonius way.

If you feel strongly that the message in the original Donahue video is harmful, fair enough, I respect that. Why not put your money where your mouth is, sell the car, get something else, and donate the difference. Otherwise, the hypocrisy suggests that your true feelings, and what you want others to believe about you, are not the same. It does nothing to support the message that greed is bad. You may not like my stated beliefs, but you'll be hard pressed to find me acting in a way that disagrees with them.

It's like when Obama claims Romney is an enemy of the disadvantaged, and yet Obama has donated a smaller amount to charity than Romney (both as a percentage of his income, and in raw dollars).

Not sure why liberals have such a hard time putting their money where their mouth is.

Sorry, I didnt create an argument. The premise of the video is that "greed can be good". You responded before me to refute that notion, all the while owning a costly example of material excess that makes any anti-greed position ring hollow. In fact, other posters pointed out this discrepancy before I did. I guess they are crazy too?

I know and accept who I am, and I am at peace with it. I do not pretend to be anything else. How that makes me delusional, I'm not sure.

You may dislike my reference of accepted, standardized definitions for words. I did not construct these definitions.

If a word that could be used to define you is in conflict with the image of yourself that you wish to present to others, shooting the messenger, or disputing the actual definition of the word does not a compelling argument make.

I am trying to point out, as others have in this thread, that people (such as you and I) who own such expensive examples of automotive excess have no justification disparaging the greed of others, especially in a sanctimonius way.

If you feel strongly that the message in the original Donahue video is harmful, fair enough, I respect that. Why not put your money where your mouth is, sell the car, get something else, and donate the difference. Otherwise, the hypocrisy suggests that your true feelings, and what you want others to believe about you, are not the same. It does nothing to support the message that greed is bad. You may not like my stated beliefs, but you'll be hard pressed to find me acting in a way that disagrees with them.

It's like when Obama claims Romney is an enemy of the disadvantaged, and yet Obama has donated a smaller amount to charity than Romney (both as a percentage of his income, and in raw dollars).

Not sure why liberals have such a hard time putting their money where their mouth is.

My first post in this thread was #7. My second post was #10. Number 12 followed. You felt compelled to get my attention after #12 because you're still disgruntled about a different subject we discussed in a different thread. Come clean. There were more provocative opinions posted prior to mine yet you used your bizarre logic to drum up a discussion. No healthy-minded, logical adult would assume because I or anyone else who drives a specific car, is greedy by nature. What proof do you have? I gave you an example of greed in my homeless man scenario but, in true fashion, you ignored it because you over-think very simple subjects. You're greedy. You're defending a man worth $200 million dollars who was born with a silver spoon up his ass. Rmoney's net worth is on par with Tonga's GDP! How can Rmoney identify with the common man or woman? What about his quote about how his wife, Ann, drives a couple of Caddies? That's greed. Why does he maintain offshore accounts?

You have no clue, like with all of your recent arguments, as to what the act of greed entails. Give back? Please. I traveled to 15 countries doing all sorts of humanitarian efforts with folks while protecting my nation. You think just because you donate a buck to an African baby while picking up a muffin at Whole Foods qualifies you as an ambassador for volunteerism? FOH. Speak for yourself. Everything I've obtained, which really isn't much, was because of my effort and wasn't because I was greedy or exploited someone or SOMETHING for my own personal gain.

What about his quote about how his wife, Ann, drives a couple of Caddies? That's greed.

It seems like you are going around and around in circles. I cant find a point here.

OK, Ann Romney is greedy, by your own statement, because she drives a couple of Caddies.

So, clearly you are capable of equating greed with automotive ownership excess. As you may or may not know, Caddies tend to have a very steep depreciation curve. In fact, without knowing what year or model they are, I think it's entirely plausible (if not likely) that the current value of her 2 cars is probably not much more than the value of a 2011 M3. So, if she owns X dollars of automotive excess, that is greed personified, but if you own X dollars of the automotive excess, that is not? Of course, her purchases enabled American workers that you respect so much. Liberal hypocrisy once again.

You seem to imply that if you purchase way more than you need, that is not greed if that money was honestly earned, whereas if you purchase way more than you need using funds you acquired via family inheritance, or marrying wealth, then that is worse somehow? Is that how you feel you occupy a morally higher ground than Ann Romney ?

I'm not sure what comment you were hoping for in your homeless man scenario. If he bites the hand that feeds him, eventually they will notice, stop feeding him, and then he will begin to starve. That's natural selection. I got no problem with that.

I'm sorry if I dont respond to each and every thing you bring up, there are a lot of that I dont agree with, but if I spent enough time to address them all, I'd have to quit my job. I wouldnt want your hard earned taxes to support me because of some stupid choice I make.

Tell you what, you pick a point that I havent addressed yet, and I'll address that just as soon as you can explain your assertion that those who seek less union influence are commies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Why does he maintain offshore accounts?

Because he can shelter those funds from taxes. Why else do you think? What do you think he (and others like him) will do with what $ is left in US accounts if Obama gets his way and starts cranking up their tax rates even more?

Even more than todays rates. It ain't 1960 anymore, for better or for worse. Top marginal taxes rates approaching 90% will never be seen again, now that the world is open and global in many ways. People have choices and options overseas that didn't exist before, and now tech has made conducting that business no harder than dealing with the guy next door.

Honestly, when you see just how cheap, and how ripe some of the fruit is in other parts of the world, it's a wonder that certain captains of industry do any business at all in North America anymore. When the deck is already tilted against them, last thing I want is to give them one last kick in the ass out the door.

It seems like you are going around and around in circles. I cant find a point here.

OK, Ann Romney is greedy, by your own statement, because she drives a couple of Caddies.

...By her husband's own statement.

Quote:

So, clearly you are capable of equating greed with automotive ownership excess. As you may or may not know, Caddies tend to have a very steep depreciation curve. In fact, without knowing what year or model they are, I think it's entirely plausible (if not likely) that the current value of her 2 cars is probably not much more than the value of a 2011 M3. So, if she owns X dollars of automotive excess, that is greed personified, but if you own X dollars of the automotive excess, that is not? Of course, her purchases enabled American workers that you respect so much. Liberal hypocrisy once again.

We're going to have to accept an impasse because your bizarre logic is just too painful. A presidential candidate going on public record boasting quite conceitedly that his wife drives a couple Cadillacs is evidence of greed. It's crass! Rmoney is bidding to become Commander In Chief of a nation. How well do you think his comment will be received by the average American? Conversely, me acquiring a specific vehicle through means that are accessible to the common man, is not greed. Ambition is not greed. A homeless man panhandling to earn money so he can buy a juicy steak isn't greed. A homeless man stealing packages of meat when he has no means to cook it, is greed. Huge difference. Likewise, being overly ambitious however, to the point where it consumes you and the things you acquire are wasteful and redundant is greed (homeless and Ann's caddies). Having a couple Cadillacs exceeds what would normally be enough under most circumstances for a person running for public office. There is nothing excessive about an M3. The specs are irrelevant. I can live without an M3 and have. If I choose to eat lobster tails instead of canned tuna fish, is that also greed? LOL Using your ass backwards logic, you're confusing an individual's acquired taste with having a nature of greed. Not even close. I guess we should all be living in dog houses as have a several rooms in our modest homes is far far too much.

Conservative poppycock 101.

Quote:

You seem to imply that if you purchase way more than you need, that is not greed if that money was honestly earned, whereas if you purchase way more than you need using funds you acquired via family inheritance, or marrying wealth, then that is worse somehow? Is that how you feel you occupy a morally higher ground than Ann Romney ?

Actually, prior to you disturbing me, I made several statements unrelated to any of the above. It wasn't until you created an argument to entice a discussion with me which I defended. And if you paid any attention, I attributed someone's greed to their own value system. One cannot acquire $200 million by not being greedy and in the same breath convince fellow Americans that he will represent them as their potential CIC.

Quote:

I'm not sure what comment you were hoping for in your homeless man scenario. If he bites the hand that feeds him, eventually they will notice, stop feeding him, and then he will begin to starve. That's natural selection. I got no problem with that.

I presented that example to show you how a man who has nothing can still be greedy which calls into question your logic that me driving a 414HP, expensive car is greed because I'm middle class and can afford it. There are plenty of dignified homeless people who do not exploit their situation by stealing or exhibiting greedy behavior. It's all about values. You argument is ignorant and does not address one's values.

Quote:

Tell you what, you pick a point that I havent addressed yet, and I'll address that just as soon as you can explain your assertion that those who seek less union influence are commies.

Although wordy, my responses to you are necessary and complete. I at least provide an organized reply to you. You however, skip responses because you're probably more enthusiastic about the act of replying than you are about actually having a dialog.

Quote:

Because he can shelter those funds from taxes. Why else do you think? What do you think he (and others like him) will do with what $ is left in US accounts if Obama gets his way and starts cranking up their tax rates even more?

What tax rates are you speaking of specifically? How can a presidential candidate be trusted if he himself exploits the very same rules that govern the land he wishes to command?

I'm not nitpicking, I just found it ironic that you post a Romney bashing video comparing him to Jay-Z, when Obama is the one who literally hangs out with him and takes his money.

You can see my playlist if you're serious, no Jay-Z or anything like it.

I don't consider exposing how Rmoney acquired his wealth as necessarily "bashing". Your contempt for the messenger has no bearing on the truth.

There is nothing ironic about Jayz's affiliation with the president because we know jayz's role as an entertainer. Stewart's point was to expose HOW Rmoney's wealth was acquired and his fascination with money is akin to popular rappers. Therefore, Jayz is not out of character. Rmoney is! WTF does that have to do with Jayz's fundraising effort with Obama? Obama's role is to raise money.

LOL- only 9% of the world's population own a car AT ALL, let alone a late model BMW. The more capitalistic a country, the more likely the average man is to have his own car.

Oh- and although I don't like Romney, driving an upper-middle-class car when he has hundreds of millions sounds pretty modest to me.

Friedman is awesome.

Anyone here not putting their money where their mouth is freely acknowledges the reality of human nature and self-interest. Politicians are no different (and in fact, probably much worse), and if they have the power to distribute wealth, almost everyone will suffer. With capitalism (not corporatism), individuals are given the most power and control over their own success and outcomes.

Have you ever heard of ambition and hard work? Neither of which have anything to do with greed. For you to psycho analyze what motivates anyone just goes to show how ignorant you really are. In a capitalistic society, some people make it and some don't, but I guess by your logic the ones that make it are just the "greedy" ones.

But like most things in life everything is relative.... What I find most ironic is, you have the means to acquire a $65k+ BMW M3 (not to mention any other cars you might own or your net worth) yet you stand on your soap box preaching to the masses about your vision of greed. All good intentions aside, by any measure many would assume your lifestyle is also one fueled by greed.

Jay-Z began his "career" dealing drugs. That's not slanderous rumour, he freely admits it. Even relishes in it, as it boosts his rapper street cred. That's the kind of example the president wants the kids today to admire. So, that's OK, and it's appropriate for someone occupying a distinguished office such as POTUS, to hang out with and accept money from folks like that, and yet Romney, who did not acquire his wealth by illegal activities such as dealing drugs, it's not OK for him to buy his wife a couple of American-made cars ?

I have to say, you really apply a very fascinating double standard to almost everything. If person A does something, that's bad. If person B does the same thing (or even worse), thats fine, as long as their personal value system which led them to that same decision is different, or they are not acting "out of character".

I think you are right about one thing; we're going to have to accept an impasse. I personally judge folks on the outcome of their actions, not on the "values" that they embody during their daily lives. If someone donates lots to a charity, even if they do so out of purely selfish reasons (to make themselves look better), isnt that better than not donating at all ?

If you cannot see that your self interest in choosing to own a car that costs more than the sum of DECADES of annual income for billions around the world, does not paint you as devoid of greed, then I am quite certain of 1 thing: nothing that I or any other posters on this board can say will change your mind. I'd have better luck trying to convince the Pope there is no God.

Dont forget his numerous appearances on Entertainment Tonight. This guy is more of a TV fame whore than the crazies who appear on the "bachelor" with the sole hope of it boosting their chances to get an acting career.

But, I can't think of anything better he could be using his time with, such as putting in the hours to foster political relationships and allies within members of the congress so that some progress can happen. As many long-time Washington insiders state, even Clinton (the last POTUS to have young children still at home) spent a lot more time in the evenings and weekends building these bridges with the opposing party.